Talk:SS West Compo

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:USS West Compo (ID-3912)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I'm sorry, but I am going to have to fail this article. For one, each individual section is extremely short and does not provide as much context as I would like to see. Next, I would like to see more than just 5 references, but I would be willing to let that slide. The main issue is the length of the article in general and each individual section. Another side note is that I would like to see is the the facts and figures in the Infobox capitalized. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to address them on my talk page. Cheers, ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line} 17:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you elaborate further? For example, which of the Wikipedia:Good article criteria did this nomination not meet? — Bellhalla (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:USS West Compo (ID-3912)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up within a couple of hours. Dana boomer (talk) 22:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • In the second sentence of the lead, you say "a steam-powered for" Is there supposed to be something after the "steam-powered"? The sentence seems to read oddly.
     • now reads "steam-powered cargo ship" — Bellhalla (talk) 12:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
   • Second paragraph of the lead, you say "Details of West Compo's civilian career, if any, are unknown." Does this mean that it is unknown if there are any details or if she had a civilian career at all? Same in the related section.
     • Reworded to make more clear that there's no evidence of a civilian career. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
   • First paragraph of the Design and Construction section, you say "40 West ships built by the Northwest Steel of" Is Northwest Steel a company? If so, shouldn't it just be "built by Northwest Steel"?
     • Yes, it should, and yes, it now does. :) — Bellhalla (talk) 12:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Other than a few minor prose issues, this is a very nice article. I'm putting it on hold to allow you time to deal with the few concerns I've detailed above. Let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 23:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Additional comment =): there are a few instances of overlinking.... —the_ed17— 19:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Replies to Dana boomer interspersed above. Can you elaborate, the_ed17, on what is overlinked? — Bellhalla (talk) 12:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Everything looks good, so I'm passing the article. I honestly don't see any instances of overlinking, but I could be wrong... Nice work. Dana boomer (talk) 13:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about not replying...

On the GA2 review, I was talking about "West coast of the United States", the 2nd "commissioned", "Mediterranean", "Philadelphia" and the 2nd "Baltimore". At least, I think that's what I was talking about. :) —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 19:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)